NASPAJOUR~AL,VO1.
34, no. 2, Mnter 1997
Citizen Leader: A Community Service
Option for College Students
Gerri E. Perreault
The author cornpa~es and contrasts three app~oaches to
community service—cha~ity, s~vice leawing, and
citizen leadw+nd
argues for the citizen leader
framework as the pr~erred approach because it educates
students for leadership and emphasizes reciprocal learning
fo~ all involved, fitting the egalitarian values and the skills
needed in a democratic society.
Democ~acy is in danger of becoming a spectator sport.
H.C. Boyte and R. Breuer
hterest k community servic%that
is, vohmteer work ktended to benefit a community, encompassing volunteer programs and activities of the
types that have been called civic service, national service, public service,
and service learning-has
increased greatly in the past several years. ~is
interest was demonstrated by the National and Commtity
Service Act
of 1990 and the National and the Community
Service Trust Act of 1993,
which established the Corporation for National and Community Service,
combining the mite House Office of National Service, the Commission
Ger~i E. I>erwault is Director of Leadership Studies, University ofNo~thvm Iowa, Cedar
Falls.
147
NASPAJOURNAL,
WI. 34, no. 2, Writer 1997
on National and Community Service, ACTION (the federal domestic volunteer agency), and AmeriCorps, President Clinton’s program desi~ed
to develop citizem’ problem solving SWIS that can be used to meet community needs (User’s Gutie, 1993).
The national popularity of community service has been reflected on college campuses (Farr & Kari, 1993; Harward & Albert, 1994; Morse, 1989),
and this has led in the past decade to the establishment of national
organizations fike the Campus Outreach Opportunity League (COOL),
which was initiated by students in 1984 to link students with community
needs. k 1985, universities co~aborated to form Campus Compact to serve
as a clearinghouse for university-sponsored community service activities
(Morse, 1989). This recent work builds on the earlier and ongoing work of
the National Society for hternships and Experiential Education (NSIEE),
which was founded in 1971 and has since played a major role in sustaining college-community relationships in the wake of the decreased activism of the late 60s and early 70s. The continuing importance of the NSIEE
is demonstrated by the publication of a thre~volume compendium concerning the philosophy of service learning and programs related to such
a philosophy (Kendall&Associates,
1990).
The increasing interest in community service, both nationally and on campus, derives from several different concern, including the individualism
of United States socie~, the alienation and consequent withdrawal of citizens from the political process and the affairs of their community, and the
variety and depth of problems and unmet needs in the socie~ (Bellah,
Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; FranUin, 1995; Mathews, 1993;
Morse, 1989; Yankelovich, 1994). Community service provides one means
of involving young people in serving their society and is premised on the
assumption that if service begins early enough in life it wiU, in a phrase
used by BeUah and associates (1985), become a “habit of the heart.”
This increased interest in community service and the availability of federal funds may tempt colleges to establish community service programs
without taking the time to think through the advantages and disadvmtages of various alternative approaches. This article is designed to assist
co~eges in evaluating their options by comparing and contrasting three
community service approa~es: (a) charity and@) service learning, which
are currentiy in use, and (c) citizen leaders, which is being proposed in
this article.
148
Permault
Community Service as Charity
k the “charity” approach, community service is seen as involving the
use of one or more of a variety of options for helping the less fortunate.
Kendall (1990) defines charity as “doing for” or “helphg” other people
(p. 10), and its intent is to serve those who are less fortunate than oneself.
Such progrm
establish a giver-receiver relationship in which students
provide benefits to poor and other disadvantaged people. Common activities include working in a homeless shelter, clerking in a food bank,
visiting residents in a nurskg home, or titoring at-risk students. Mthou@
organtiers of these programs do not label them as chari~, charity is what
often results. Charity helps people concretely and, in the best cases, students may learn from providing services; they may for example, become
aware of the various needs that exist in their community and of the human faces behind those needs. ~ey may learn also that positive emotional rewards can be derived by helping and thus become motivated to
want to continue to help.
Even with the best intentions, however, the help that is given maybe
offset by negative consequences. Cotton warns that it is easy for service
to become “patrotiztig charity” (as cited in Kenddl, 1990, p. 9). Another
potmtiallynegative
outcome is an unconscious message of superiority of
the givers over the recipients. Rather than broadening and increasing the
givers’ understanding of the lives of others, the experiences may ody
reinforce stereotypes about the economically poor, the culturally different (e.g., Cm 1990; Iltich 1990; KendM 1990). ~
can lead to the reinforcement of feelings of powerlessness and lack of control on the part of
the recipients (Lappe & DuBois, 1994).As Kendall (1990) explains, “a program for ‘charity’ focuses on ‘doing for’ other people without asking
Robert Greedeaf’s importmt question ‘Are those being served better
able to serve and be served by their own actions?’” (p. 20).
Community Service as Service Learning
A mom promising approach is “service learning” which, as the name
implies, puts an emphasis on both service and learning. ~is approach is
dearly articulated by Kendall (1990) who describes service learning in
terms of programs that “emphastie the accomplishment of tasks which
meet human needs in combination with conscious educational growth”
(p. 20). Utiike the charity approach, learning is integrated into the structure of the program rather than just occurring by accident or as a byproduct
of student service. me educational component includes learning goals,
conscious reflection, and critical analysis (p. 20). Moreover, this type of
program helps students identify the causes that lie behind the human
149
.——
—-—
NASPAJOURNAL,
Ml. 34, no. 2, Mnter 1997
needs they are trying to address and “helps participants see their questions in the larger context of issues of social justice and social policy—
rather than in the context of charity” (p. 20).
Reciprocal learning, in which all participants both give and receive, is
another key component of service learning. This avoids the unidirectional
approach in which the group with the resources provides charity to those
who lack resources (p. 22). Participants+omrnunity
members and students—learn from each other; everyone is both a teacher and a learner
(Kendall 1990; Stanton 1990a, 1990b) and participants determine what they
want to learn (Stanton 1990a).
The differences between the Aarity and the service learning approaches
can be dlustrated using a hypothetical example of working in a homeless
shelter. k the charity model, students see themselves as helping a less
fortunate population whose members are viewed as being dependent
upon the givers’ skills. For some students, such an experience may reinforce a view that if the receivers were not so lazy and did not have bad
personal habits they would not have ended up in a shelter. Under the
sewice learning approach, students learn—prior to serving-the
wide
range of social, political, and personal forces that are responsible for
hopelessness. They learn to ask questions such as, “How did the massive cuts in low income housing contribute to the homeless problem?”
and “What was the effect on families of the massive layoffs by corporations?” Their questions can lead to the consideration of a number of other
possible factors, such as the problem of a consumer economy that does
not reward saving, of a society where the increase in divorce leads to a
consequent increase in women heading famfies, of a wage system that
results in full-time workers living in poverty, and of a policy of
mainstreaming of mental patients.
With the greater awareness engendered by such questions and the examination of the causal factors that stand behind people’s needs, students are less likely to cast blame on the receivers of the service for their
pfight, have stereotypes reinforced, or perceive the receiver of the help in
an inferior role. Their learning provides them with a broader perspective
on society’s problems, the root causes of social ills, and the potential solutions that are available. By broadentig students’ perspectives and bringing about an understmding of people’s lives and the social causes behind
their problems, the service learning approach has distinct advantages over
the charity approach.
150
Perreault
Community Service as Citizen Leadership
An alternative approach uses a citizen leader model that focuses directly
on educating for leadership and working for changes that shape a common future. It conceptualizes community service witi
an approach that
both encourages and educates students to become active citizens. me
approa~ views students and other community members as fe~ow concerned citizens and provides the leadership education and training necessary for their efforts for the future. me citizen leader approach borrows
concepts from the University of Minnesota’s Project Public Life (Boyte &
Breuer, 1992) and is a logical extension of the service learning approach.
Because “democracy is in danger of becoming a spectator sport” (Boyte
& Breuer, 1992), project leaders seek to ticrease the participation of citizens in public life and goverrunent. ~ey argue that Americans have left
their nation in the hands of experts and professional politicims whom
they expect to solve their problems for them; the country has become a
passive and deficient nation of climts, who have their problems defined
by professionals and not a nation of citizens (The Book 1992, p. 8). Such
cfients have restricted private lives (p. 8) and have daracteristics
that
closely match the recipients of chari~.
Project Pubfic Life proposes a “citizen politics” in whi~ ordha~ citizens
are at the center of public problem-solving (The Book, 1992, p. 11). Citizens
are active and creative, define their own problems, and engage with others in the public arena to seek solutions. Citizens, not government, provide the basic resource for addressing social problems. Professional
politicians and government agencies are “supplements and adjuncts” to
the work of citizens (p. 11).
Other educators, s~olars, and writers also call for a focus on citizenship.
For example, Newmann (1990) suggests the need for a broader view of
citizenship: “. . . the current crisis in civic life is caused in part by the
society’s reliance on a view of citizenship that sees democracy essentially
as a set of procedures for the pursuit of private interest” (p. 83). He argues
that “the main task for the democratic public citizen is to deliberate with
other citizens about the nature of the public good and how to achieve it”
(PP. 76-177)~d advocates support of activities that inaase students’ competence as public citizens. Morse (1989) makes similar arguments in an
ASHE-EMC report on Renaing Civic Capacity. Colleges and universities
“have CLmandate to develop responsible citizens” and can have an important impact on students in the “very critical formative years” (p. v).
151
NASPAJOURNAL,VOI.
34, no. 2, Writer 1997
me citizen leader approach builds on service learning. hdeed, tie ingredients of an effective service learning experience would lead naturally to
the emergence of citizen leaders, although the awareness of the need for
leadership may occur late in the project. For example, a few years ago
~CA students at the University of fiesota
concluded that they needed
to do more than help the people they were serving. ~ey saw that the
needs were endless and would always be so unless the root causes of the
problems were addressed. ~s
example illustrates that once students
identify the root causes (as they do in service learning programs), the
next logical step is to explore what can be done. h educational sessions
before and during a project, participants explore the nature and causes of
a community problem or issue and collectively decide how they want to
address it.
h the proposed citizen leader model, the relationship of the participants
is egalitarian, representing an inclusive philosophical approach. It is ako
a practical strategy derived from the work of community leaders such as
Lappe and DuBois (1994), who conclude from their own work that effective decision-mahg
“depends on the ingenuity and experiences of those
who are directly affected” (p. 17). Under the egalitarian view of citizen
leadership, participants become~ellow citizens rather than givers and receivers (or clients). Students are encouraged to see themselves as citizens
engaged with fe~ow citizens in constructive change efforts to help shape
a common future.
Participants are provided with education and training that focuses specifica~y on educating for citizen leadership (Perreault, 1994). me education is structured and includes au participants. Leadership concepts, skill
buildtig, and reflective components are threaded through the education
and training from the beginning to the end of a project. Participants collectively define a problem and set project goals, analyze the causes of the
social issue they are addressing, and work together to try to constructively ameliorate its effects or change the conditions. h the process, students and community members develop the perspectives and skills
necessary for citizen leaders.
me citizen leader approach has a number of common elements with the
service learning approach. Both focus on the importance of learning, the
necessity for structured learning, including reflection and for asking questions that help discover the reasons that lie behind the needs participants
are addressing, and the egalitarian or reciprocal relationship of all the
participants. me major differences between the service learning approach
and the citizen leader approach is the latter’s dual focus on constructive
change which helps shape the future and on the explicit education of the
152
Perreault
Table 1
Community Service Three Approaches
Dimensions
Charity
Service
Learning
Citizen
Leader
Operational value:
help
learn
Primary outcome:
met needs
awareness
Secondary outcome:
awareness
see leadership
need
shape the
future
constructive
change
leaders
emerge
Mew of constituent:
client
peer
fellow citizen &
citizen leader
Power relationship:
doing for
doing with
doing with
Learning design:
none
or byproduti
structured
structured
Learning relationship
helper
reciprocal
learning
reciprocal
learning
stiderrts for leadership. The differences among the three approa~es
summarized in the outline in Table 1.
are
The citizen leader approach
can, again, be i~ustrated by using a homeless
-.
shelter project. Through college-community
connections, the shelter invites students to establish a mutua~y beneficial rebtionship. Citizen leader
students and everyone involved with the shelter—the homeless, staff,
board members, funders-work
together to define the issues they want
to address and determtie the leadership skills they want to acquire. Ml
the participants receive leadership education and ski~s traintig designed
to assist them in their work. As a group, the participants decide which
goals and strategies they want to pursue. They might work on concerns
about how the shelter is run (e.g., its lack of safety) and develop group
strategies that can lead to Aange. They might organize a campaign to
educate the public about the need for more shelters or lobby state or national government offices for changes in the policies that contributed to
the need for shelters in the first place (e.g., cuts in funding for low-income
housing). The trtiing assists them in setting their goals and in planning
the strategies necessary to achieve them.
153
—.—
——.—
__—
NASPAJOURNALVol. 34, no. 2, Winter 1997
There are many other possibilities for engaging stidents in community
service work as citizen leaders. They might assist in a community political campaign, coordinate a recychg campaign on campus or in the community, link up with farmers fighting for the right to label their beef
additive-free, or work with a mayor’s office on a “healthy communities”
project. The potential for projects is tiimited.
The citizen leader approach educates students for leadership. k its emphasis on reciprocal learning of all involved, the citizen leader approach
fits the egalitarian values and the skills needed in a democratic socie~. It
also assists colleges in meeting their often-stated goal of develophg the
leadership abilities of their students (Roberts& Ullom, 1989).
Conclusion
CoUeges interested in community semice may wish to implement programs using the citizen leader model. Student affairs staff and faculty
interested in developing such programs may find a natural ally in the
college leadership programs that have grown rapidly in the last few years
and are both curricular and cocurricular in nature (Freeman, fiott, &
Schwartz, 1994). Many of these programs include service activities (fiott
and Freeman, 1994) and may be capable of incorporating citizen leader
opportiities
for their students. Many colleges have a history of collaborative efforts of student affairs and academic affairs departments that provide the working relationship necessa~ for the development of students
as citizen leaders (Erickson, 1995).
There are many advantages to a citizen leader approach. It is in line with
the goal of college and universities to develop future citizens and leaders
(e.g., Roberts & Ullom, 1989); it provides students with a range of abiEties, skills, and values needed for these roles; it helps meet societal needs;
it assists stidents in the movement from passive spectators to active citizens, thus lessening the risk of democracy “becoming a spectator spot.”
h short, it develops the “habit” of true citizenship, aflowing participant%
students and community members—to learn to see each other as fellow
citizens, and to develop the capacities necessary for effective participation in a democratic society. It develops leaders for today and for the futire.
154
Perreault
References
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R. W., Sullivan, M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M.
(1985). Habits of the heayt: Individualism
and commitment
in American l~e,
NY Harper and Row.
Boyte, H. C., & Breuer, R. (1992, Winter). Service, citizenship and
politics: a perspective from project public life. Compact News, 5, 1,5.
Cruz, N. (1990). A challenge to the notion of service. In J. Kendall and
Associates (Eds.), Combining
service and learning:
A ~esource book for
community and public service, Vol. 1 (pp. 321-323). Raleigh, North Carolina:
National Society for internships and Experiential Education.
Erickson, B. (1995, Winter). Leadership is action, not position. NoYthern
Iowa Today, 78,12-15.
Farr, J., & Kari, N. (1993, Spring). Education for citizenship: The case
of higher education. Public Life, 4, 1-2, 4.
Franklin, B.A. (1995, February 15). In our national loss of community,
the political parties are becoming a wasteland too. The Washington SpectatoY,
21, 1-3.
Freeman, F. H., Knott, K. B., & Schwartz, M. K. (1994). Leadership
education 1994-1994: A source book. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Hi~rward, B. M., & Albert, L. S. (1994, February). Service and servicelearning: a guide for newcomers. AAHE Bulletin. 46, 10-13.
Illich, I. (1990). To hell with good intentions. In J. Kendall and
associates (Eds. ), Combining
service and learning:
A YesouYce book foy
commu?zity and public seyvice, Vol. 1 (pp. 314-320). Raleigh, North Carolina:
National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Kendall,
J. C. (1990).
Combining
service
and learning:
An
In J. Kendall and Associates (Eds.), Combining seyvice and
introduction.
learning: A Yesource book for community and public service,Vol. I (pp. 1-33).
Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Kendall, J. C., & Associates.
(Eds. ). (1990). Combining
service nnd
learning: A Yesouvce book for community and public service (Vol. I). Raleigh,
NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education,
Knott, K. B., & Freeman, F. H. (1994). Leadership education in colleges
and universities. Issues & Observations,
14, 1-3.
Lappe, F. M., & DuBois, P. M. (1994). The quickening
of AmeYica:
Rebuilding our nation, remaking OUYlives. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Mathews, D. (1993, July 7). Why students hate politics. The ChYonicle
p. A56.
Morse, S, W. (1989). Renewing civic capacity: Preparing college students
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report #8).
foy seyz~ice and citizenship.
Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, The
George Washington University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 321 704)
of HigheY Education,
155
NASPAJOURNAL,
Ml. 34, no. 2, Mnter 1997
Newmann, F. M. (1990). Reflective civic participation. In J. Kendall
and Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning: A resouvce book for
community and public service, Vol. 1 (pp. 76-84). Raleigh, NC: National Society
for Internships and Experiential Education.
Perreault,
G. (1994). Community
service: Educating
for citizen
leadership. ISPA ]ouYnal, 9,19-32.
The Book: The political
educator’s
guide to citizen politics.
(1992).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Project Public Life.
Roberts, D., & Ullom, C. (1989). Student leadership program model.
NASPA ]ou~nal, 27,67-74.
Stanton, Timothy (1990a). Service learning: Groping toward a
definition. In J. Kendall and associates. Combining se~vice and lea~ning: A
Yesource book foy community and public seyvice, Vol. 1 (pp. 65-67). Raleigh,
NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Stanton,
Timothy
(1990 b). Service
learning
and leadership
development:
Learning to be effective while learning what to be effective
about. In J. Kendall & Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning: A
YesouYce bookfo~ community and public seyvice, Vol. 1 (pp. 336-352). Raleigh,
NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
+:+
156